Making Up For Lost Time
Holy hyperventilating neocons! Recently, the Post-Standard opinions page ran a special "Unhappy Anniversary" letters section, reserved for letters about Iraq. There were no pro-war letters in the batch, which I have to assume means there weren't any pro-war letters to run, as the paper has never had an issue with running even the most poorly-written line-toeing rants. Evidence: the section set aside today for reactions to the first batch of letters. Ironically, most of the reactions are anti-war and anti-administration too, but not surprisingly, it also brought out a few wingnuts. Bear in mind - these are the best, if not the only, pro-war letters the paper had to run.
William is popular here at SOB. He's a frequent letter writer, and he almost always starts his letter by pointing out how liberals control everything, including the opinions page. Nevermind that Cal Thomas's column was running opposite his letter, or that the paper is run by a notoriously right-wing family, or that Central New York, as a whole, is pretty solidly red. What Bill and others like him just don't seem capable of understanding is that they have become the lunatic fringe, especially in the Northeast. Nationally, a solid 60% of people feel that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, and only 39% believe we should not begin planning for a pull-out. If Bush's national approval rating is at 36%, and you figure in that he is still wildly popular in large sections of the country, how low must his approval here be to counterbalance that? Remember, that 36% includes Texas, which by itself really throws off the bell curve. It's not that the paper is artificially weighing the argument in favor of the ;liberals' who don't support war for profit. It's that, as the truth slowly becomes evident, there just aren't many people who are still falling for the nonsense.
Inadvertently, Bill proves this point, as his own argument has become almost laughably inane. He says that "New information now suggests that in fact that there were WMDs." Wait, what? What new information, Bill? Hearing it on Rush Limbaugh doesn't equate to inspection results. There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq had a WMD program since being compelled to dismantle it following the Gulf War, and in fact, all evidence of WMDs used by the administration to advance the war agenda has been debunked. Remember the yellowcake from Nigeria? The far right jumped all over Dan Rather when he gave a story based on documents that might possibly have been forged (though most probably not), but are suspisciously quiet about the administration starting a war based in part on documents proven to be forgeries, as the yellowcake reports were. How about those aluminum tubes, which were obviously meant for a nuclear program because they were coated with a special substance specifically for the purpose? When nuclear experts were finally asked if the tubes could be used for a nuclear program, the response was, without exception, that one would first have to scrape off all the special coating. Whatever this 'new information' is, I have to assume Bill has access to classified documentation, because no reliable sources have found such 'new information.'
Bill goes on. "He also proudly demonstrates his ignorance by inferring that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 when many argue differently." First of all, Bill, he didn't 'infer' it, he implied it. When calling someone else ignorant, one should be cautious of making vocabulary errors. Second, you're right, many people do argue that a connection did indeed exist between Iraq and al Quaida, but to be fair, a lot of people argue that the world is only 5000 years old. Simply arguing a point doesn't make it valid if it flies against all available evidence. All major studies, including the 9/11 Commission Report and the Bush Administration's own study, have said conclusively that no such link existed. Even Bush and Cheney have been backpedaling on this issue, assuring Americans that they never claimed there was an Iraqi link to 9/11, evidently forgeting that most of what they say is recorded and can be played back later to prove that, yes, in fact they did.
Bill used to be better at this, although the argument used to be easier to make. His vague assurances of 'new information' and 'many people arguing' are laughable and heartening. The blind nationalists are running out of ammunition. Sorry Bill. No points for this one.
Whoah, WHAT??? The American Civil War??? I've heard the far right try to compare the Iraq occupation to World War II to counterbalance valid comparisons to Vietnam, and thought that was about as laughable as you could get. I obviously underestimated the delusions of the wingnuts.
This is just batshit loony. Lincoln didn't voluntarily send American troops halfway around the world to occupy a foreign country at the expense of the domestic agenda. Licoln had war thrust upon him when the Confederacy seceded, the warfront was here at home, and it was to save America domestically. You almost can't pick an American conflict that is closer to the polar opposite of our occupation of Iraq. Lincoln's legacy is that of an honest man and a hero of civil rights. Tell you what, Bry. 50 years from now, you check out what the history books say about Bush. I'll bet you my pension he's not remembered as a paragon of integrity. Further, I'll bet you won't admit to being a rabid Bush supporter either. You'll notice you don't find many people who announce with pride that they voted for Nixon anymore.
Seriously, if I'm not allowed to compare Bush to Hitler, then you're not allowed to compare him to Lincoln. The current Republican party is not the same as the Nazis, but it's also not the progressive populist Republican party of Lincoln. Also, just out of curiosity, what does Roosevelt have to do with Bush, outside of having created so many of the national parks and reserves that Bush wants to allow industry to ruin?
Okay, as anyone who is at all familiar with the climate of Central New York can tell you, we Syracusans tend to chuckle at the 'First Day of Spring.' While it may be chronologically accurate, it in no way implies an actual improvement in weather. Somehow, when brushing the snow off my car in the bone-chilling cold this morning, I was not suddenly inspired to go stand on a street corner with a placard, protesting all day as my genitalia shrunk to the size of BBs. Bill would like to believe that the recent protests are due to the great weather we've been having, which, like so many batshit wingnut arguments, can be debunked with an act as simple as looking out the friggin' window.
That aside, I think Bill's goal is really to poke fun at the silly protestors who have nothing better to do than alphabatize their placards. It's not really a prejudice worth validating with a response, except that it seems meaningful given the recent protests in Syracuse.
I'm not a protester. I think it's simply because I'm not social enough to participate that way. Regardless, I have respect for protesters of any ilk, as long as they are peaceful and respectful. At least they're participating in the government of the people, something that the vast majority of Americans doesn't bother to do in any manner whatsoever. So while I'm not inclined to jump up and join them, I don't believe that protestors are any crazier than somebody who writes snarky letters to the editor about protestors, or a guy who writes a snarky blog criticizing the guy who wrote the snarky letter to the editor. We participate in the way we're best able.
It does bear mentioning, however, that on Monday nine peaceful protestors were arrested when they entered the Army recruiting office in downtown Syracuse. Sure, you could write them off as a bunch of dumb college students with too much time on their hands, as Bill no doubt would. You'd just be wrong. Here is a list of those arrested and their ages:
Kathleen Rumpf, 54
Jessica Maxwell, 30
Ann Tiffany, 70
Paul Frazier, 60
Jerome Berrigan, 86
Annette Pfannenstiel, 67
Paul Collier, 62
Robert Brhel, 67
Rae Kramer, 59
Not exactly your average bored, rich-kid protesting crowd, is it Billy? The Army recruiters actually had an 86-year-old man arrested instead of engaging them in a 30 minute discussion, which is all the protestors requested. Now, I don't think the recruiting office was the best place for them to go... those guys are basically salesmen who've been fed a line to feed to recruits. I do have issue with people like Bill, however, who paint these people in broad, disrespectful strokes when so many of those with nothing to do but 'flap their signs'... oh, not to mention a little jail time for demonstrating peacefully... are older, wiser, and more deserving of respect than he is.
To the Editor:
Even with the realization that liberals dominate The Reader' Page, the Sunday edition letter (March 19 by Ron Blackmore) was especially repugnant considering that we are at war. Blackmore asserts that President George W. Bush is both dishonest and inept - being capable of only staging speeches to select groups.
Surely the writer refers to the WMDs which at that time everyone around the world thought true. New information now suggests that in fact that there were WMDs.
Blackmore, in his pride of emphasizing his contempt for the military, argues that the U.S. troops have already killed more civilians than those who died on 9/11. He also proudly demonstrates his ignorance by inferring that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 when many argue differently.
William
William is popular here at SOB. He's a frequent letter writer, and he almost always starts his letter by pointing out how liberals control everything, including the opinions page. Nevermind that Cal Thomas's column was running opposite his letter, or that the paper is run by a notoriously right-wing family, or that Central New York, as a whole, is pretty solidly red. What Bill and others like him just don't seem capable of understanding is that they have become the lunatic fringe, especially in the Northeast. Nationally, a solid 60% of people feel that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, and only 39% believe we should not begin planning for a pull-out. If Bush's national approval rating is at 36%, and you figure in that he is still wildly popular in large sections of the country, how low must his approval here be to counterbalance that? Remember, that 36% includes Texas, which by itself really throws off the bell curve. It's not that the paper is artificially weighing the argument in favor of the ;liberals' who don't support war for profit. It's that, as the truth slowly becomes evident, there just aren't many people who are still falling for the nonsense.
Inadvertently, Bill proves this point, as his own argument has become almost laughably inane. He says that "New information now suggests that in fact that there were WMDs." Wait, what? What new information, Bill? Hearing it on Rush Limbaugh doesn't equate to inspection results. There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq had a WMD program since being compelled to dismantle it following the Gulf War, and in fact, all evidence of WMDs used by the administration to advance the war agenda has been debunked. Remember the yellowcake from Nigeria? The far right jumped all over Dan Rather when he gave a story based on documents that might possibly have been forged (though most probably not), but are suspisciously quiet about the administration starting a war based in part on documents proven to be forgeries, as the yellowcake reports were. How about those aluminum tubes, which were obviously meant for a nuclear program because they were coated with a special substance specifically for the purpose? When nuclear experts were finally asked if the tubes could be used for a nuclear program, the response was, without exception, that one would first have to scrape off all the special coating. Whatever this 'new information' is, I have to assume Bill has access to classified documentation, because no reliable sources have found such 'new information.'
Bill goes on. "He also proudly demonstrates his ignorance by inferring that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 when many argue differently." First of all, Bill, he didn't 'infer' it, he implied it. When calling someone else ignorant, one should be cautious of making vocabulary errors. Second, you're right, many people do argue that a connection did indeed exist between Iraq and al Quaida, but to be fair, a lot of people argue that the world is only 5000 years old. Simply arguing a point doesn't make it valid if it flies against all available evidence. All major studies, including the 9/11 Commission Report and the Bush Administration's own study, have said conclusively that no such link existed. Even Bush and Cheney have been backpedaling on this issue, assuring Americans that they never claimed there was an Iraqi link to 9/11, evidently forgeting that most of what they say is recorded and can be played back later to prove that, yes, in fact they did.
Bill used to be better at this, although the argument used to be easier to make. His vague assurances of 'new information' and 'many people arguing' are laughable and heartening. The blind nationalists are running out of ammunition. Sorry Bill. No points for this one.
To The Editor:
Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Bush? Like our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, he is fighting an unpopular war for the good of the country. This war mirrors the Civil War much more than it does Vietnam, as far as the homefront is concerned.
Lincoln had to deal with the Democrats, and their shameless attempts to subvert the war for their party's political gain. Ah, some things never change.
Bryan
Whoah, WHAT??? The American Civil War??? I've heard the far right try to compare the Iraq occupation to World War II to counterbalance valid comparisons to Vietnam, and thought that was about as laughable as you could get. I obviously underestimated the delusions of the wingnuts.
This is just batshit loony. Lincoln didn't voluntarily send American troops halfway around the world to occupy a foreign country at the expense of the domestic agenda. Licoln had war thrust upon him when the Confederacy seceded, the warfront was here at home, and it was to save America domestically. You almost can't pick an American conflict that is closer to the polar opposite of our occupation of Iraq. Lincoln's legacy is that of an honest man and a hero of civil rights. Tell you what, Bry. 50 years from now, you check out what the history books say about Bush. I'll bet you my pension he's not remembered as a paragon of integrity. Further, I'll bet you won't admit to being a rabid Bush supporter either. You'll notice you don't find many people who announce with pride that they voted for Nixon anymore.
Seriously, if I'm not allowed to compare Bush to Hitler, then you're not allowed to compare him to Lincoln. The current Republican party is not the same as the Nazis, but it's also not the progressive populist Republican party of Lincoln. Also, just out of curiosity, what does Roosevelt have to do with Bush, outside of having created so many of the national parks and reserves that Bush wants to allow industry to ruin?
To The Editor:
Ah yes; it's the harbingers of spring. The robins are appearing along with the geese. And, let's not forget the war protestors - the Peace Geese. Ever notice how few of these professional protestors are visible during the long, cold days of winter? They start coming out of their bunkers when the warmer days of spring arrive, flapping their signs.
Actually, I suspect many have a well-arranged group of signs in their garages or homes, in alphabetized order. There are all categories of things they can protest. They love protesting and probably it is an avocation to some. A hobby of sorts. Springtime is more to their liking.
Bill
Okay, as anyone who is at all familiar with the climate of Central New York can tell you, we Syracusans tend to chuckle at the 'First Day of Spring.' While it may be chronologically accurate, it in no way implies an actual improvement in weather. Somehow, when brushing the snow off my car in the bone-chilling cold this morning, I was not suddenly inspired to go stand on a street corner with a placard, protesting all day as my genitalia shrunk to the size of BBs. Bill would like to believe that the recent protests are due to the great weather we've been having, which, like so many batshit wingnut arguments, can be debunked with an act as simple as looking out the friggin' window.
That aside, I think Bill's goal is really to poke fun at the silly protestors who have nothing better to do than alphabatize their placards. It's not really a prejudice worth validating with a response, except that it seems meaningful given the recent protests in Syracuse.
I'm not a protester. I think it's simply because I'm not social enough to participate that way. Regardless, I have respect for protesters of any ilk, as long as they are peaceful and respectful. At least they're participating in the government of the people, something that the vast majority of Americans doesn't bother to do in any manner whatsoever. So while I'm not inclined to jump up and join them, I don't believe that protestors are any crazier than somebody who writes snarky letters to the editor about protestors, or a guy who writes a snarky blog criticizing the guy who wrote the snarky letter to the editor. We participate in the way we're best able.
It does bear mentioning, however, that on Monday nine peaceful protestors were arrested when they entered the Army recruiting office in downtown Syracuse. Sure, you could write them off as a bunch of dumb college students with too much time on their hands, as Bill no doubt would. You'd just be wrong. Here is a list of those arrested and their ages:
Kathleen Rumpf, 54
Jessica Maxwell, 30
Ann Tiffany, 70
Paul Frazier, 60
Jerome Berrigan, 86
Annette Pfannenstiel, 67
Paul Collier, 62
Robert Brhel, 67
Rae Kramer, 59
Not exactly your average bored, rich-kid protesting crowd, is it Billy? The Army recruiters actually had an 86-year-old man arrested instead of engaging them in a 30 minute discussion, which is all the protestors requested. Now, I don't think the recruiting office was the best place for them to go... those guys are basically salesmen who've been fed a line to feed to recruits. I do have issue with people like Bill, however, who paint these people in broad, disrespectful strokes when so many of those with nothing to do but 'flap their signs'... oh, not to mention a little jail time for demonstrating peacefully... are older, wiser, and more deserving of respect than he is.
posted by Zafrod at 11:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home